Print

Print


I believe Rob is trying to underscore the fact that there are variable 
ways to record a Work's title (not to mention an Instance's) and, 
because there are variable ways to do it, the query becomes, well, 
ridiculous.

I actually have no answers at present and I am more curious if we could 
whittle the multiple threads/issues/emails down to a set of distinct 
issues tackled in turn.  I've read all the emails several times and I'm 
still trying to figure out how a bunch of questions about the intent of 
properties associated with bf:Title resulted in threads about ISBD and 
alphabetical ordering, which, yes, directed people to read a Unicode 
document.  I'm not saying these aren't issues that perhaps need to be 
addressed, but let's entertain doing so in an orderly fashion.  :)

So, I believe Rob kicked off a thread that basically asked why are there 
two methods to capturing title information.[1] One way is to use a 
literal string and the other is to reference a bf:Title resource.  Here 
are examples of the two approaches:

--------
As a literal:

ex:1 rdf:type bf:Work
      bf:title "All the King's Men"
--------


--------
As a resource:

ex:1 rdf:type bf:Work
      bf:workTitle ex:2

ex:2 rdf:type bf:Title
      bf:titleValue "All the King's Men"
--------

The variability probably reflects a few things: trying to have it both 
ways so that implementers have the option; a misunderstanding or 
miscommunication about how multiple groups and individuals think about 
"titles;" a desire to accommodate old and new cataloging rules; and a 
level of parity with current cataloging practice.

Personally, I am in favor of investigating treating titles as string 
literals.  (And I mean all titles: constructed titles, regular 
old-fashioned-this-is-the-title titles, abbreviated titles, spine 
titles, key titles, added title page titles, etc.) However, that's a lot 
easier to say than it is to robustly test and robust testing is needed 
because titles clearly unearth a number of little-considered but real 
issues, such as a Work with multiple titles, each with translations or 
transliterations [2] and the need to capture the fact that a title was 
added by a cataloger (and perhaps an implicit need to capture "who" 
assigned that particular title).  I'm sure there are more.

While the bf:Title construct exists as an attempt to address /some/ of 
those less common cases (such as a cataloger assigned titles), it 
remains problematic because it is hard to square that particular use 
case with existence of "bf:formDesignation" or "bf:titleAttribute," the 
definitions of which strongly suggest they are aspects of the Work, not 
a "title."  Since these properties are associated with a bf:Title 
resource (and a bf:Title resource is distinct from a Work or Instance), 
they raise vocabular/modelling questions.  And, because they have 
corollaries in MARC, they also evoke current MARC-cataloging practice.

Which brings me to another point:  When we - as listserv participants - 
say "Title" are we always talking about the same thing?  Is it possible 
some of us are using it interchangeably with "Work" while others 
maintain that a Title is a Thing unto itself and that a Title is, 
therefore, "related to" but distinct from a Work or Instance?  If it is 
the former, then we might better explore treating the titles of Works as 
string literals.  If it is the latter, then that would argue that titles 
are better treated as distinct resources.  But if we are multiple 
individuals saying one thing and thinking another, then things get 
confusing.

So, I think these last questions are the first ones we need to find 
agreement on.

1) Is a title an attribute or property of a Work or Instance?  Do you 
think of a "title" as synonymous with a Work (or Instance), that is, the 
thing you are describing?

	OR

2) Is a title a type of Thing unto itself, one that can have its own 
identifier, and is related to but otherwise distinct from the Work or 
Instance you are describing? It is something that is associated with a 
Work but is not necessarily a property or attribute of the Work?  Though 
this is not only way to look at this, one wants to ask: Are titles 
re-usable?

I don't think there are any right or wrong answers to the above 
questions.  I'm interested in gaining a better understanding where 
everyone is coming from, which I hope will then be an indicator about 
which way to take this thread.  And I certainly do not see the above as 
precluding one of the two possibilities as they currently exist, nor do 
I find this approach to be a replacement for use cases.  I'm just trying 
to determine if there is an underlying point-of-view issue here.

[ For my answer: I see it as (1).  I view titles as attributes or 
properties of Works and Instances, not things unto themselves.]

Yours,
Kevin

[1] http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1407&L=bibframe&T=0&P=21183
[2] http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1407&L=bibframe&T=0&P=22684




On 07/28/2014 01:38 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Rob, I'm not sure that the use cases document is up to date with the
> current state of BF. As I stated before, here is an actual title "entry"
> from a recently converted MARC->BF:
>
>
>    bf:instanceTitle
> <http://bibframe.org/resources/Ahx1405278232/1706459title33>
>
> <http://bibframe.org/resources/Ahx1405278232/1706459title33>
>
>      bf:titleValue "The adventures of Tom Sawyer" ;
>
>      a bf:Title .
>
> bf:title exists, as do bf:titleVariation, bf:titleType, and
> bf:titleStatement. I believe that these would change the SPARQL query.
> If you'd like, I can create a small test set.
>
> kc
>
> On 7/28/14, 10:26 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>> (Was alleys, before that titles)
>>
>> From the use cases document:
>>
>>   SELECT ?work ?inst ?lib
>>   WHERE {
>>     ?work bf:title "Phantom Tollbooth"
>>     ?inst bf:instanceOf ?work
>>     ...
>>
>>
>> I think this needs to be something like...
>>
>>   SELECT ?work ?inst ?lib
>>   WHERE {
>>       { ?work bf:title "Phantom Tollbooth" }
>>     UNION
>>       { ?work bf:titleStatement "Phantom Tollbooth" }
>>     UNION
>>       { ?work bf:label "Phantom Tollbooth" }
>>     UNION
>>       {
>>          { ?work bf:workTitle ?title }
>>         UNION
>>          { ?work bf:titleVariation ?title }
>>        ?title bf:titleValue "Phantom Tollbooth" }
>>     UNION
>>       {
>>          {  ?work bf:hasInstance ?inst }
>>        UNION
>>          { ?inst bf:instanceOf ?work}
>>        UNION
>>         { ?inst bf:label "Phantom Tollbooth" }
>>        UNION
>>         {
>>           {  ?inst bf:instanceTitle ?title }
>>            UNION
>>            { ?inst bf:titleVariation ?title }
>>          ?title bf:titleValue "Phantom Tollbooth"
>>       }
>>     ...
>>
>> Yes? :(
>>
>> And this is a simple case without punctuation, sub-titles, etc.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:53 AM, [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>>     I have had that feeling all through these discussions. At:
>>
>>     http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-usecases
>>
>>     only six out of fifteen use cases mention library patrons (by my
>>     count), so I am inclined to think that the answer to that second
>>     question may in fact be: library catalogers and their colleagues.
>>
>>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask]  http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>